I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
(OP)
I have a vendor telling me that QQ-P-35C, TYP 2 VII has been superseded by AMS-2700. I can't find anything on this so I'm hoping someone here has much greater research powers and can point me in the right direction. Thank you all.





RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
See here
http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident...
RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
I looked up the spec here: http://quicksearch.dla.mil/ and found the original process.
I can also find the current spec here: www.astm.org
And the alternate here: www.sae.org
I happen to have called up these spec's recently, and it turns out that the SAE did not completely adopt the QQ-P-35 processes. There are several types and classes of passivation included in these specs. I have a vendor that can still accomplish the QQ-P and another that prefers the AMS spec. I still get the passivation that I want.
If you are selling your product to the armed forces of the United States of America, then you are forbidden from specifying or applying the old QQ-P-35 to your products now that they are superseded. However, if you are a civilian, or selling internationally, or procuring/producing for a government that is not the US of A, then you can use any process that your customer deems satisfactory.
Remember, any production process is just "one" way to do something. It is not the "only" way to do something.
STF
RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
QQ-P-35C, dated 28 OCTOBER 1988, NOTICE 1 dated 4 APRIL 1997 and NOTICE 2 dated 14 NOVEMBER 1997, are hereby canceled. Future acquisitions for this product should refer to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification ASTM A967, “Standard Specification for Chemical Passivation Treatments for Stainless Steel Parts”, or, SAE Aerospace Materials
Specification (AMS) AMS-QQ-P-35, “Passivation treatments for Corrosion-Resistant Steel”. Aerospace applications require the use of AMS-QQ-P-35.
The above guidance is for DoD activities only and does not apply for non-DoD uses. Users are cautioned to evaluate these documents for their particular applications before citing them as a replacement document.
AMS-QQ-P-35 was cancelled and superseded by AMS 2700 from the AMS-QQ-P-35 cancellation notice:
This specification has been declared “CANCELLED” by the Aerospace Materials Division, SAE, as
of February, 2005, and has been superseded by AMS 2700. The requirements of the latest issue of
AMS 2700 shall be fulfilled whenever reference is made to the cancelled AMS-QQ-P-35, utilizing the
“Type” designation noted in the following table. By this action, AMS-QQ-P-35 will remain listed in the Numerical Section of the Index of Aerospace Material Specifications, noting that it has been superseded by AMS 2700.
AMS 2700 added the use of a citric acid.
RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
see Sparweb's post above.
normally/often/sometimes/"only when we're lazy" Eng'g drwgs accept using superceded specs. Then when Planning call tell them the current equivalent spec.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
In essence, these documents [or drawings], provide 'old' base numbers [materials, processes, parts] in column 'A'; and then indicate in adjacent column 'B' one or more acceptable options. For the OEM and certain customers... such as DoD... these are formal acceptance for the substitute and requires no further engineering approval or documentation. As time goes-on the listing base number and substitutes can grow 'huge'.
CAUTION. These substitution documents/drawings almost-always allow use of the original material, process or part... so 'forward and backwards' substitutions are acceptable. IF a drawing or document is modified so-as-to revise what is acceptable... IE AN4 bolt is replaced by NAS6304 bolt on the PL and FD, then going backwards [IE: to the AN-4 bolt] is generally prohibited... unless specifically allowed by exception on the drawing/document.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
A long standing example of this sort is the MIL Grease specs, which typically fail to detail all the chemistry involved, meaning that greases that meet the performance requirements in the spec may not be interchangeable.
RE: I have a vendor telling me that QQ-
Here's a link to the first 2 pages of AMS-QQ-P-35A if you want to read about it.